Technology and Sustainable

Development HS5060

Hariharan T S
MS16D007

[COUNTER INTUITIVE GREEN REVOLUTION]

A Study of Systemic Failure of Expert Designed Technological Intervention for Sustainability

1
Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
Green Revolution in India A History......................................................................................3
Green Revolution and its Technological & Economic Imperatives...........................................3
Structural Changes due to Green Revolution.............................................................................5
Green Revolution and the Idea of Sustainability.......................................................................6
Green Revolution, Counter Intuition & Principles of Systems Thinking..................................7
Counter Intuitive Results........................................................................................................7
Antecedents of CI Results......................................................................................................8
Window of Perception (WoP).............................................................................................8
Disruption of Natural Flow/ Cycle.....................................................................................8
Inhibition of Autopoiesis....................................................................................................8
Telos-Morphing...................................................................................................................9
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................9
References................................................................................................................................10

2
Introduction
The process of increasing food production and improving its quality to sustain population
growth without compromising environmental safety is called green revolution (GR). The
term Green Revolution was first coined by the former Director of United States Agency for
International Development (USAID), Mr William Gaud. Since then GR has caught the fancy
of political leaders and scientists. GR is a politico-technological initiative aimed at increasing
agricultural productivity by adopting new technologies to cater to needs of increasing world
population. GR was touted as an anti-thesis to Malthusian prediction that increasing human
population will result in food scarcity and famine.

In 1969, the then president of the Rockefeller Foundation called for a conference to address
world hunger problem. Bellagio Conference, as it was named after the place the conference
was held, resolved for a technological fix (later to be named GR) to address the hunger
problem of the world. Bellagio conference became the harbinger of a new type of
technological cult in the name of GR (Sebby K, 2010). Dr. Norman Borlaug credited as the
father of GR, purported that GR will buy time while we find solution to the growing
population of the world.

There are 6.6 billion people on the planet today. With organic farming we could only feed
four billion of them. Which two billion would volunteer to die? Dr. Norman Borlaug, The
Man Who Fed the World (Hesser L 2006)

GR was designed as strategy for world peace by increasing agricultural productivity

assuming that peace can be bought by food security and by the superiority of technology
(Shiva V 1994). But did GR actually help increase productivity and did it preserve
environment as it was conceived to be?

Also, GR was positioned as a technological innovation there by making it a politically-neutral

proposition, as technology stays insulated and immune to social and political judgements. But
is GR politically-neutral? Winner (1980) argues that Politics is inherent to technology; GR,
laden with politics where the developed countries thrust upon their agricultural agenda on
developing countries, cannot be politically-neutral. This paper discusses the social, economic
and ecological derangements caused by the adoption of GR in the state of Punjab, from a
Systemic Perspective. Agricultural system in India is a complex multi-use system; adopting a
reductionist single-use technological strategy, such as GR, can result in counter-intuitive
3
results. This paper also discusses the concepts of systems thinking which possibly explains
the un-intended results of GR.

Green Revolution in India A History

India, primarily an agrarian economy during 1960s, felt the pinch of growing population and
therefore growing food needs was looking for a solution to feed its people. Dr. C
Subramanian, the then Agricultural Minister of India, impressed by the benefits of GR,
pushed for the implementation of GR against the warning of the then prime minister Lal
Bahadur Shastri, members of Planning Commission and eminent economists such as B S
Minhas and T S Srinivas. Also the 1966 drought left India expecting the food supply aid from
United States and Lyndon Johnson, the then president of US, cornered India to sign up for
green revolution package. Political situation and natural omen forced India to adopt GR.
Even before the formal adoption of GR, agencies such as Ford Foundation, Rockefeller
Foundation, and USAID were closely working with Indian Scientists and were transferring
modern American agricultural technologies to India, which proved to be very helpful in
formally adopting GR technology.

Punjab was then identified as a testing platform of GR for multifarious reasons such as
availability of fertile land, abundant water and wealthy farmers. Punjab was very fast to adopt
GR, where 73% of the total area adopted GR technology in the first decade (Kohli D S &
Singh N, 1997). The adoption of GR was yielding good results vis--vis the conventional
farming during the first decade of adoption, where the output per hectare of the food grains
increased by 36.5% (HDR Punjab Report, 2004). These benefits of GR although did not last
long and were superseded by unintended problems such as drought, infertility of soil,
violence in the state, farmer suicides etc. M S Swaminathan, the father of GR in India, admits
that GR is not a best idea as monocropping and industrialisation were depleting water table
and soil nutrients.

Green Revolution and its Technological & Economic Imperatives

Before GR, subsistence farming was predominantly practiced in India and the reliance on
modern technology was almost non-existent. With the introduction of GR, modern
agricultural technology took to the fore front. Farmers were encouraged to use High Yield
Variety (HYV) seeds, which are engineered for specific traits to increase agricultural yield.
These HYV seeds need chemical fertilisers and abundant water for producing high yield. Dr.

4
Palmer of UNRISD concluded that it is misnomer to call engineered seeds as HYV rather
they shall be called High Response Variety (HRV) seeds, as without external inputs such as
water and fertilisers HRV seeds are no better than the native varieties, in fact inferior to them.

Since HYV seeds require more nutrients to produce high yields and so the use of fertilisers
correspondingly increased after the introduction of GR. In 1970-71 fertilisers used was
1694000 tonnes, whereas in 1975-76, the use increased to 3369000 tonnes (Shiva, 1994).
Agriculture suddenly became cash intensive affair after the introduction of GR and many
small farmers were forced to sell their land since they cannot afford to continue agriculture.

HYV crops require abundant water for high yields and it became imperative to the
government to build centralised technologies such as canals and dams to feed crops. A
kilogram of HYV rice needs 4000 litres of water (Singh J. 2013). Canals were built against
the natural flow and through forests and agricultural lands, which caused disruption
ecologically and politically. In the parts where the canals were not operated deep tube wells
were dug; number of tube wells increased unsustainably from 1.92 lakhs in 1970 to 4.5 lakhs
in 1975 (Shiva V. 1994), depleting the water table in the area.

GR focused only on high grain yield and considered every other part of plant as useless and
hence the yield of straw, which fed live stocks, depleted over time from 3 times the grain
yield to 1.3 times (Singh R B & et. Al 1995). Cattle breeders had to depend on other costly
sources of food for their cattle. Proponents of GR had forgotten to peruse the holistic benefit
of the traditional agricultural system and their arguments supporting GR are lopsided only
towards grain productivity (Shiva V. 1994).

Lastly, morphing the role of seeds as just raw material in the entire crop cycle had economic
impact on the farmers. The HYV seeds were bio engineered for required traits and in most
cases are protected by Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). Farmers using HYV seeds were
prevented from sharing them to other farmers through these IPRs. Corporations such as
Monsanto came out with Terminator seed technology, which will render the seed infertile
after a few uses and thankfully due to world-wide protest, this technology was withdrawn.
Seeds became a costly affair, for instance cost of a kilogram of Bt. Cotton is Rs. 17000
whereas it used to be available for Rs. 7 (Shiva V. 1997). Corporations through the inherent
design of GR exploited farmers to make higher profits (Sahai S, et. Al 2007)

5
Structural Changes due to Green Revolution
With the adoption of GR, the agriculture in Punjab underwent structural changes. Proponents
of GR, encouraged farmers to plant rice and wheat as GR technology concentrates mainly on
these two crops. The table below illustrates how the composition of total cropped area
changed over a period of 4 decades in Punjab.

Year Total Cropped Area Rice & Wheat Area in

(ha) ha (% of Total Area)
1965-66 5171 1893 (36.6%)
1975-76 6285 3006 (47.8%)
1985-86 7169 4853 (67.7%)
2012-13 7905 6363 (80.5%)
Source : Statistical Abstract of Punjab 1985-86, 2014-15

Rice and wheat were supported by the Government of Punjab with Minimum Support Price
(MSP) scheme whereas other crops were not. MSP scheme encouraged farmers to plant rice
and wheat, both of which consumed more water than other crops such as millets, bajra, maize
etc. Since MSP scheme, small scale farmers wanted to cultivate rice and wheat but
unfortunately were not able to afford irrigation facility. It was not economically viable to
cultivate rice and wheat for a farmer with less than 15 acres of land. Small scale farmers were
either pushed to cultivate other cereals or sell off their lands to large scale farmers. A section
of small scale farmers committed suicide because of financial losses caused by the vagaries
of nature.

Large scale farmers in turn exploited MSP scheme to their favour and stopped cultivating
other cereals. Monoculture, a practice of cultivating single crop over a large area, became
more prevalent. Although large scale monoculture of rice and wheat had ensured food
security it also had detrimental effects on society as a whole by eliminating livelihood of
smaller farmers and risking the crops to pest attacks. For instance, Bacterial Blight attack on
IR8, a high yield rice variety engineered by IRRI in Manila, wiped out almost 50% of the rice
output of Philippines (Alvares C. 1986). The promise of the proponents of GR that the crop is
pest resistance was unmet. The following table provides a comparison of outbreaks of pests,
insects and diseases in different varieties of rice, both native and engineered (HYVs and Semi
Dwarf varieties), cultivated in Punjab from the year 1967 to 1983. It is clear from that table
that HYVs are twice as prone to pest attacks as the native varieties. Majority of the pest
attacks on HYVs and Semi Dwarf varieties (SDVs) are major and multiple pest attacks and

6
has resulted in financial losses to the farmers. These pest attacks forced farmers to use more
pesticides, which in turn increased the cost of agriculture.

A comparative Chart of Impacts of Pests & Diseases on Rice in Punjab during 1967 to
1983
HYVs and SDVs
Year (GR Technology) Impact Native Varieties Impact
1967 IR8 Minor Basmati370 Minor
IR8, Jaya, Palman,
1972 RP5-3 Moderate Sabarmati, Ratna Major
1973 IR8, Jaya Minor
1975 IR8, Jaya, PR106 Major
PR558, PR559, PR
562, IR8, Jaya, Major
1978 PR106, PR103 (Multiple Pests)
IR8, Jaya, PR106,
1980 PR103 Major Basmati370 Major
1981 PR107, PR4141 Major
PR107, PR4141, Major
1982 PR106 (Multiple Pests) HM95 Major
PR196, PR4141, Pusa-150, Pusa-
PR106, IR8, Jaya, Major 169, Basmati370, Major (Multiple
1983 PR103 (Multiple Pests) Punjab Basmati1 Pests)
Source : Miracle Seeds and Destruction of Genetic Diversity, Violence of Green Revolution, Vandana Shiva - Original G
S Sidhu

Monocropping, a practice of planting the same crop year after year, also became the reality as
farmers were more interested in cultivating only rice and wheat. Monocropping did not allow
the soil to replenish its nutrients and thus fertility of the soil depleted rendering the soil un-
arable. Monocropping also involves clearing huge patches of lands and tress, which has
damaging effects on environment (Sebby K 2010).

Another interesting structural change of agriculture after the adoption of GR is the

diminishing variety of the crops planted. India had 120000 varieties of rice, which were
cultivated in different parts of India and in different climatic conditions but with the advent of
GR the number of varieties planted reduced to less than 100, even less in Punjab where the
variety reduced to 50 (Alvares C 1986).

Green Revolution and the Idea of Sustainability

The term sustainability can be interpreted in multiple ways depending on the context but
this context dependent aspect of sustainability pose serious challenges for the concept of

7
sustainability itself. For instance, focussing only on food sustainability might lead to
problems in ecological sustainability. Similarly focussing only on ecological sustainability
might be detrimental to economic sustainability. The concept of sustainability must be
understood and applied holistically to prevent unintended consequences. GR, predominantly
an anthropocentric approach reduces the idea of sustainability to the context of food security
neglecting ecology and society has proven detrimental to the state of Punjab.

Green Revolution, Counter Intuition & Principles of Systems Thinking

Although there were certain political and economic interests in implementation of GR, its
implementation had an important goal of providing food security. GR was successful by and
large in achieving that goal; An International Food Policy research Institute (IFPRI) research
acknowledges that It took nearly 1,000 years for wheat yields to increase from 0.5 to 2
metric tons per hectare, but only 40 years to climb from 2 to 6 metric tons per hectare
through technological revolution of GR. In this paper we have so far seen, although how GR
had solved the problem of food security, but had inadvertently led to ecological and political
problems. Now lets examine the antecedents of these counter intuitive (CI) results from
systemic perspective.

Counter Intuitive Results

CI Results can be classified into two types CI Type 1 and CI Type 2 (Ganesh L S,
Unpublished). When an intervention is operated to solve a problem, actually solves the
problem but leads to another problem of same or different magnitude and context is classified
as CI Type 1. When an intervention is operated to solve a problem, but instead of solving
the problem if it aggravates the problem, then such results can be classified as CI Type 2.

In this case of adoption of GR in Punjab, there are many instances of CI results of both types.

Counter Intuitive Type - 1 Counter Intuitive Type - 2

GR touted as an alternative to traditional
farming to increase productivity has
solved the food security problem but has
led to ecological and political damage.
Monocropping practices intended to help
farmer to reduce the work load depletes
the soil nutrients.
GR intended to increase the income of the
farmers actually put small scale farmers
in to debt.
GR perceived as a strategy for peace
actually resulted in violence between the
communities and farmer suicides

8
Antecedents of CI Results
Understanding the antecedents of such CI results is paramount because they can potentially
become indicators for the impending problems in a particular system*. Some of the possible
antecedents of the CI results of GR are discussed below.

*A system is a set of interrelated entities that has specific purpose(s)

Window of Perception (WoP)

The concept of WoP was pioneered by the 1972 - Club of Rome, which is also an important
conglomeration of sustainability of earth. WoP is a two dimensional spatial temporal
representation of boundary of attention to a system. Entities represented in a WoP can be both
physical (Eg: Lands, Crops, etc.) and conceptual (Government, Institutions, Culture, Ecology,
Environment etc.). WoP allows us to appreciate the infinite connectivitys of systems. Larger
the window of perception, lesser the possibilities
of counter intuitive results.

Unfortunately the proponents of GR and the

decision makers had a smaller WoP, in which
they only considered food security of Punjab and
perceived GR as a short term solution. They
failed to appreciate the connectivity between food productivity and water systems,
environmental systems, and ecological systems. This smaller WoP of the decision makers
may have led to the counter intuitive results in the case of implementation of GR practices in
Punjab.

Disruption of Natural Flow/ Cycle

It is near to impossible for man to model the natural cycle as nature has complex and
dynamic connectivity with its entities. The failure of appreciation of natural flow and infinite
connectivity could possibly result in Counter Intuition. After the GR intervention in Punjab,
the water requirement for agriculture increased and so it became imperative for the
Government to build dams and canals. These dams disrupt natural flow of rivers, which
affects the evaporation cycle, the water table downstream, ecosystem resulting in over
flooding in certain area, drought in some and uneven rainfall overall.

Inhibition of Autopoiesis
The concept of Autopoiesis (Auto Self, poiesis Creation) is the ability of living systems to
self-create and self-regenerate. Autopoiesis is pioneered by H. Maturana and his student F.

9
Varela. Ecosystems and Social systems also exhibit Autopoiesis (Seidl D 2004). Autopoiesis
is an important function of a living system and if it is inhibited, the system ceases to live. For
instance, seeds have the ability to create, regenerate and perfect themselves and so the
farmers after every harvest store the best seeds for the next crop cycle. With the advent of
GR, farmers were no longer saving seeds and were expecting corporations to supply
improved seeds to them. And hence, the seeds lost the opportunity to recreate themselves and
hence to get perfected. As the engineered seeds are improved only on few traits and its ability
to withstand pest attacks might be less as compared to autopoietic seeds resulting in
unfavourable results.

Telos-Morphing
Telos or purpose is an important aspect that defines a system. A system cannot exist without a
purpose and the purpose can either be endogenous or exogenous or both. Telos-Morphing is
an intervention to change the purpose of the system. When the purpose of the system changes
without subsequent changes in the structure and behaviour of the system, it could result in
counter intuitive results. With the anthropocentric stand point, we tend to disregard the
inherent purposes of ecological entities and systems. When the seeds are just construed as
raw materials, disregarding their inherent purpose of self-creation and perfection, the results
are detrimental.

Conclusion
GR is a typical case of how a well-intended, well planned, and technologically superior
expert designed solution can result in Counter Intuition. The case of GR gives us much
needed learning of seeing systems holistically to avoid unfavourable situations. Technologies
of GR exploited natural cycles, rivers, seed cycles, culture, and other social aspects and
people of Punjab paid a heavy price for it.

The question is not whether we want technology or not, it is to understand the quality of
technology such as whether the technology is embracing or exploiting, whether it is large,
moderate or small, whether it is sustainable or not, etc. Also experts and decision makers
must have a wider WoP and have to be accommodative to natural processes and cycles, when
dealing with large systems.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of
genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction E.F.Schumacher, Small is Beautiful.

10
References
1. Sebby, Kathryn. "The Green Revolution of the 1960's and Its Impact on Small Farmers in
India." (2010).

2. Winner, Langdon. "Do artifacts have politics?." Daedalus (1980): 121-136.

3. Singh, Nirvikar, and Deepali S. Kohli. "The green revolution in Punjab, India: the
economics of technological change." Journal of Punjab Studies 12, no. 2 (2005): 285-306.

4. Shiva, Vandana, Alice Littlefield, and Hill Gates. "The violence of the Green Revolution."
(1994).

5. Singh, Joginder. "Genetic diversity for sustainability of rice crop in Indian Punjab and its
implications." Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science 2, no. 9 (2010): 293-298.

6. Singh, R. B., R. C. Sana, Mahendra Singh, Dinesh Chandra, S. G. Shukla, T. K. Walli, P.

K. Pradhan, and H. P. P. Kessels. "5.1. RICE STRAW-ITS PRODUCTION AND
UTILIZATION IN INDIA." Principles and applications with emphasis on Indian livestock
production: 325.

7. Vandana, Shiva. "Biopiracy: the plunder of nature and knowledge." Toronto: Between the
Lines (1997).

8. Sahai, Suman, Prasmi Pavithran, and Indrani Barpujari. "BiopiracyImitations, Not

Innovations." Khanpur, New Delhi, India: Gene Campaign (2007).

9. Alvares, Claude. "The great gene robbery."The Illustrated Weekly of India 23 (1986): 6-17.

10. Seidl, David. "Luhmanns theory of autopoietic social systems." Ludwig-Maximilians-

Universitt Mnchen-Munich School of Management (2004): 36-37.

11. Von Bertalanffy, Ludwig, and John W. Sutherland. "General systems theory: Foundations,
developments, applications." IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 4, no. 6
(1974): 592-592.

12. Meadows, Donella H., Donella H. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens
III. The limits to growth: a report to the club of Rome (1972). Universe Books, New York,
1972.

11